Wednesday, May 07, 2003

Is that a condom in your pocket or are you just happy to shoot me?

Once again the discuss list fumes over guns. One of the stump speeches given against the non-discriminatory concealed carry permit law that has become law is that we'll have people at the State Fair with guns, probably taking target practice at turkey-on-a-stick. Much handwringing goes on today on our soon-to-be-purged discuss list (details forthcoming, stay tuned) over the proliferation of guns and how more guns cannot possibly be a good thing. Dave sent me a note while this was going on (I pretty much drew all the fire from the rest of campus) suggesting that one could draw a parallel between guns and condoms. After another discuss-list handwringer had asked how many perpetrators of multiple murders would have been granted permits under Minnesota's new law. Dave asks:

�How many perpetrators of mass rape would have qualified to be licensed for �conceal and carry� of prophylactics under Minnesota�s new law?�

What really concerns me now is that there will be thousands more men walking around our State Fair . . . and our campus . . . with rubbers concealed on their bodies. Sure, some may have received state-mandated training in their use by licensed instructors, and some may use them to prevent the criminal spread of V.D. But I mean, really, don�t you think that some men - intoxicated at the Beer Garden or caught up in the moment of looking at nubile young bodies going down the Giant Slide - may be emboldened by knowing that they are carrying condoms, seize the moment, and whip them out?

I recall some highschoolers during my days who stuck a rubber in his wallet "in case of emergency". (What? You hear sirens?) So of course a guy gets to thinking, and to Googling, and I find this article by Michelle Malkin. "If you teach a child how to use a condom, you're promoting safety -- not usage. Why, then, doesn't the same logic apply to guns?"

I don't intend to have the blog become a place to discuss the Minnesota law -- Mitch Berg has cornered that market, and this piece from a friend's blog deserves a full reading -- but what is telling is that when you ask these people for even a shred of evidence suggesting that passage of non-discriminatory CCW permit issuance leads to more gun-related deaths, nobody comes with an answer. And these are supposed to be academics, not your run-of-the-mill mediot. ("Mediot " = "media" + "idiot")